Il existe une distinction entre « l’utilisation du récit des faits dans le but inadmissible de “confirmer la véracité des déclarations faites sous serment” » et « l’utilisation du témoignage narratif dans le but admissible d’établir l’existence d’une plainte et le moment de son dépôt, ce qui pourrait alors aider le juge des faits dans son appréciation de la véracité ou de la crédibilité des déclarations »

R. v. K.C., 2023 BCCA 411

Lien vers la décision

[27]      It is a well-established principle that prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible because they lack probative value and amount to hearsay when considered for the truth of their contents: R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 at para. 5; R. v. Gill, 2018 BCCA 275 at para. 65.

[28]      There are exceptions to this principle. In the present case, the Crown relied on the “narrative as circumstantial evidence” exception. Under this exception, the statement is admitted for the limited purpose of helping the trier of fact explain how the complainant’s story was disclosed: R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 at para. 37. However, when a prior statement is admitted under the narrative exception, it is only the fact and timing of the prior statement that are admissible for the purpose of assisting the trier of fact in understanding the sequence of events in evaluating the credibility of the witness: Dinardo at paras. 37–8. The content and details of the statement are not admissible to corroborate the witness’s trial evidence: R. v. N.P., 2021 BCCA 25 at para. 13. Similarly, the relevance of the evidence lies only in the timing of the statement, and the fact that the complainant told someone about the assault occurring. Under this exception to the hearsay rule, the details of the assault are not relevant: R. v. Brooks, 2023 BCCA 121 at para. 96.